THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 206019. March 18, 2015.]

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER
OF INTERNAL REVENUE, respondent.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J :
p

Nature of the Case

This is an appeal via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court seeking to reverse and set aside the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) En
Banc September 12, 2012 Decision, as reiterated in a Resolution of February 12,
2013 in CTA EB Case No. 762, arming the earlier decision of its First Division
denying petitioner's claim for the refund of excess creditable withholding tax
which it allegedly erroneously paid the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) in the
amount of Twelve Million Four Hundred Thousand and Four Pesos and SeventyOne Centavos (P12,400,004.71).
The Facts
Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc. (Gotesco), a Filipino corporation engaged in
the real estate business, 1 entered on April 7, 1995 into a syndicated loan
agreement with petitioner Philippine National Bank (PNB) and three (3) other
banks. To secure the loan, Gotesco mortgaged a six-hectare expanse known as
the Ever Ortigas Commercial Complex, under a mortgage trust indenture
agreement in favor of PNB, through its Trust Banking Group, as trustee. 2
Gotesco subsequently defaulted on its loan obligations. Thus, PNB foreclosed the
mortgaged property through a notarial foreclosure sale on July 30, 1999. On
August 4, 1999, a certicate of sale was issued in favor of PNB, subject to
Gotesco's right, as debtor and mortgagor, to redeem the property within one (1)
year from the date of inscription of the certicate of sale with the Register of
Deeds of Pasig City on November 9, 1999. 3
On October 20, 2000, Gotesco led a civil case against PNB before the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 168 (RTC) for the annulment of the foreclosure
proceedings, specic performance and damages with prayer for temporary
restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction. 4
On November 9, 2000, the RTC issued a TRO enjoining PNB from consolidating
ownership over the mortgaged property, then on December 21, 2000, a writ of
preliminary injunction. PNB's motion for reconsideration was subsequently
denied. 5
PNB went to the Court of Appeals (CA) via a Petition for Certiorari. The CA ruled
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

in favor of PNB and issued an Order reversing and setting aside the writ of
preliminary injunction issued by the RTC. Gotesco's Motion for Reconsideration
was denied on December 22, 2003. 6 As Gotesco did not challenge the CA ruling,
the setting aside of the writ of preliminary injunction became nal and
executory.
As it prepared for the consolidation of its ownership over the foreclosed property,
PNB paid the BIR Eighteen Million Six Hundred Fifteen Thousand Pesos
(P18,615,000) as documentary stamp tax (DST) on October 31, 2003. PNB also
withheld and remitted to the BIR withholding taxes equivalent to six percent
(6%) of the bid price of One Billion Two Hundred Forty Million Four Hundred
Sixty-Nine Pesos and Eighty-Two Centavos (P1,240,000,469.82) or Seventy-Four
Million Four Hundred Thousand and Twenty-Eight Pesos and Forty-Nine Centavos
(P74,400,028.49) on October 31, 2003 and November 11, 2003. 7
Pending the issuance of the Certicate Authorizing Registration (CAR), the BIR
informed PNB that it is imposing interests, penalties and surcharges of Sixty-One
Million Six Hundred Seventy-Eight Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Pesos and
Twenty-Eight Centavos (Php61,678,490.28) on capital gains tax and Fifteen
Million
Four
Hundred Ninety-Four
Thousand and Sixty-Five Pesos
(Php15,494,065) on DST. To facilitate the release of the CAR, petitioner paid all
the surcharges, interests and penalties assessed against it in the total amount of
Seventy-Seven Million One Hundred Seventy-Two Thousand Five Hundred FiftyFive Pesos and Twenty-Eight Centavos (Php77,172,555.28) on April 5, 2005. 8
On the claim that what it paid the BIR was not entirely due, PNB lost no time in
instituting the necessary actions. Thus, on October 27, 2005, it led an
administrative claim for the refund of excess withholding taxes with the BIR. A
day after, or on October 28, 2005, it led its petition for review before the tax
court, docketed thereat as CTA Case No. 7355. 9
SAHIDc

In its claim for refund, PNB explained that it inadvertently applied the six percent
(6%) creditable withholding tax rate on the sale of real property classied as
ordinary asset, when it should have applied the ve percent (5%) creditable
withholding tax rate on the sale of ordinary asset, as provided in Section 2.57.2
(J) (B) of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 2-98 as amended by RR No. 6-01,
considering that Gotesco is primarily engaged in the real estate business. The
applicable creditable withholding tax rate of ve percent (5%) of the bid price is
equivalent to the amount of Sixty-Two Million Twenty-Three Pesos and Forty-Nine
Centavos (Php62,000,023.49). Therefore, PNB claimed that it erroneously
withheld and remitted to the BIR excess taxes of Twelve Million Four Hundred
Thousand and Four Pesos and Seventy-One Centavos (Php12,400,004.71). 10
On March 22, 2007, PNB led another claim for refund claiming erroneous
assessment and payment of the surcharges, penalties and interests. Petitioner
led its corresponding Petition for Review on March 30, 2007, docketed as CTA
Case No. 7588. 11
Upon motion of petitioner, CTA Case Nos. 7355 and 7588 were consolidated. The
consolidated cases were set for pre-trial conference which CIR failed to attend
despite several resetting. On September 21, 2007, CIR was declared to be in
default. 12
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

CTA Decision
In its July 12, 2010 consolidated Decision, 13 the CTA Special First Division (First
Division), in CTA Case No. 7588, ordered the CIR to refund to PNB
P77,172,555.28 representing its claim for refund of interests, surcharges and
penalties on capital gains taxes and documentary stamp taxes for the year 2003.
14

In CTA Case No. 7355, however, the First Division denied PNB's claim for the
refund of excess creditable withholding taxes for insuciency of evidence. The
tax court agreed with PNB that the applicable withholding rate was indeed ve
percent (5%) and not six percent (6%). 15 Nevertheless, it held that PNB, while
able to establish the fact of tax withholding and the remittance thereof to the
BIR, failed to present evidence to prove that Gotesco did not utilize the withheld
taxes to settle its tax liabilities. The First Division further stated that PNB should
have oered as evidence the 2003 Income Tax Return (2003 ITR) of Gotesco to
show that the excess withholding tax payments were not used by Gotesco to
settle its tax liabilities for 2003. The First Division elucidated:
With the above proof of payments, this Court nds that the fact of
withholding and payment of the withholding tax due were properly
established by petitioner. . . .
However, it must be noted that although petitioner duly paid the
withholding taxes, there was no evidence presented to this Court
showing that GOTESCO utilized the taxes withheld to settle its own tax
liability for the year 2003. Being creditable in nature, petitioner should
have likewise oered as evidence the 2003 Income Tax Return of
GOTESCO to convince the court that indeed the excess withholding tax
payments were not used by GOTESCO. The absence of such relevant
evidence is fatal to petitioner's action preventing this Court from granting
its claim. To allow petitioner its claim may cause jeopardy to the
Government if it be required to refund the claim already utilized. 16

On July 30, 2010, PNB led a Motion for Reconsideration (MR), attaching
therewith, among others, Gotesco's 2003 ITR and the latter's Schedule of
Prepaid Tax, which the First Division admitted as part of the records.
On April 5, 2011, the First Division issued a Resolution 17 denying PNB's MR
mainly because there were no documents or schedules to support the gures
reported in Gotesco's 2003 ITR to show that no part of the creditable withholding
tax sought to be refunded was used, in part, for the settlement of Gotesco's tax
liabilities for the same year. It stated that PNB should have likewise presented
the Certicate of Creditable Tax Withheld at Source (BIR Form No. 2307) issued
to Gotesco in relation to the creditable taxes withheld reported in its 2003 ITR.
BIR Form No. 2307, so declared in the Resolution, will conrm whether or not
that the amount being claimed by PNB was indeed not utilized by Gotesco to
oset its taxes. In denying the MR, the First Division explained:
Petitioner attached to its Motion, income tax returns of GOTESCO for the
taxable year 2003, to prove that the latter did not utilize the taxes
withheld by petitioner. The returns were submitted without any
attachment regarding its creditable taxes withheld. Except for GOTESCO's
Unadjusted Schedule of Prepaid Tax for the taxable year 2003, there were
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

no other documents or schedules presented before this Court to support

the gures reported in the tax returns of GOTESCO for the same year
under Lines 27 (C), (D) and (G) of the Creditable Taxes Withheld.
EcTaSC

We note that the amounts reported by GOTESCO as creditable taxes

withheld for the year 2003 were just P6,014,433.00 in total, which is less
than P74,400,028.49, the creditable taxes withheld from it by the
petitioner. In fact, it is less than the P12,400,004.70 creditable taxes
withheld being claimed by petitioner in its present motion. However, this
Court deemed that such observation alone, without any supporting
document or schedule, is not enough to convince us that no part of the
creditable withholding tax sought to be refunded is included in the total
tax credits reported by GOTESCO in its tax returns for the taxable year
2003 which was used, in part, for the settlement of its tax liabilities for
the same year.
To suciently prove that GOTESCO did not utilize the creditable taxes
withheld, petitioner should have likewise presented BIR Forms No. 2307
issued to GOTESCO in relation to the creditable taxes withheld reported in
its 2003 tax returns. Doing so will dispel any doubt as to the composition
of GOTESCO's creditable taxes withheld for 2003. This will settle once and
for all that the amount being claimed by petitioner was not utilized by
GOTESCO, and thus the claim should be granted. Until then, this Court will
stand by its decision and deny the claim. 18

In due time, PNB led an appeal before the CTA En Banc by way of a Petition for
Review, docketed as CTA EB Case No. 762. 19 PNB argued that its evidence
conrms that Gotesco's Six Million Fourteen Thousand and Four Hundred ThirtyThree Pesos (P6,014,433) worth of tax credits, as reported and claimed in its
2003 ITR, did not form part of the P74,400,028.49 equivalent to six percent (6%)
creditable tax withheld. To support the foregoing position, PNB highlighted the
following:
1. Gotesco continues to recognize the foreclosed property as its own
asset in its 2003 audited nancial statements. It did not recognize
the foreclosure sale and has not claimed the corresponding
creditable withholding taxes withheld by petitioner on the
foreclosure sale.
2. Gotesco testied that the P6,014,4333.00 n tax credits claimed in the
year 2003 does not include the P74,400,028.49 withholding taxes
withheld and paid by petitioner in the year 2003.
3. PNB presented BIR Form No. 1606, the withholding tax remittance
return led by PNB as withholding agent, which clearly shows that
the amount of P74,400,028.49 was withheld and paid upon PNB's
foreclosure of Gotesco's asset. 20

Finally, in its July 12, 2010 Decision, the First Division expressly provided that
Gotesco's 2003 ITR was the only evidence it needed to show that the excess
withholding taxes paid and remitted to the BIR were not utilized by Gotesco.
On September 12, 2012, the CTA En Banc, in the rst assailed Decision, 21 denied
PNB's Petition for Review and held:
In this case, petitioner is counting on the Income Tax Returns of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

GOTESCO for the taxable year 2003 and on a certain Unadjusted

Schedule of Prepaid Tax for the same year to support its argument that
GOTESCO did not utilize the taxes withheld by petitioner; however, We
are not persuaded.
To reiterate, since the claim for refund involves creditable taxes withheld
from GOTESCO, it is necessary to prove that these creditable taxes were
not utilized by GOTESCO to pay for its liabilities. The income tax returns
alone are not enough to fully support petitioner's contention that no part
of the creditable withholding tax sought to be refunded by petitioner was
utilized by GOTESCO; rst, there were no other relevant supporting
documents or schedules presented to delineate the gures constituting
the creditable taxes withheld that was reported in GOTESCO's 2003 tax
returns; and second, this Court cannot give credence to the Unadjusted
Schedule of Prepaid Tax for the taxable year 2003 being referred to by
petitioner as the same pertains merely to a list of GOTESCO's creditable
tax withheld for taxable year 2003 and was not accompanied by any
attachment to support its contents; also it is manifest from the records
that petitioner failed to have this Schedule of Prepaid Tax oered in
evidence, and thus, was not admitted as part of the records of this case.
22

After the denial of PNB's Motion for Reconsideration on February 12, 2013,
bank led this instant petition.

23

the

Issue
Whether or not PNB is entitled to the refund of creditable withholding taxes
erroneously paid to the BIR. Subsumed in this main issue is the evidentiary value
under the premises of BIR Form No. 2307.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is impressed with merit. As PNB insists at every turn, it has
presented sucient evidence showing its entitlement to the refund of the excess
creditable taxes it erroneously withheld and paid to the BIR.
As earlier stated, the CTA predicated its denial action on the postulate that even
if PNB's withholding and remittance of taxes were undisputed, it was not able to
prove that Gotesco did not utilize the taxes thus withheld to pay for its tax
liabilities for the year 2003.
In its Decision, the First Division categorically stated, "[P]etitioner should have
likewise oered as evidence the 2003 Income Tax Return of GOTESCO to
convince this Court that indeed the excess withholding tax payments were not
used by GOTESCO. The absence of such relevant evidence is fatal to petitioner's
action preventing this Court from granting its claim." 24
Thus, apprised on what to do, and following the First Division's advice, PNB
presented Gotesco's 2003 ITRs as an attachment to its MR, which was
subsequently denied however. In ruling on the MR, the First Division again
virtually required PNB to present additional evidence, specically, Gotesco's
Certicates of Creditable Taxes Withheld (BIR Form No. 2307) covering
P6,014,433 tax credits claimed for year 2003, purportedly to show nonutilization by Gotesco of the P74,400,028.49 withholding tax payments.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

Although PNB was not able to submit Gotesco's BIR Form No. 2307, the Court is
persuaded and so declares that PNB submitted evidence suciently showing
Gotesco's non-utilization of the taxes withheld subject of the refund.
First, Gotesco's Audited Financial Statements for year 2003, 25 which it
subsequently led with the BIR in 2004, still included the foreclosed Ever Ortigas
Commercial Complex, in the Asset account "Property and Equipment." This was
explained on page 8, Note 5 of Gotesco's 2003 Audited Financial Statements:
Commercial complex and improvements pertain to the Ever Pasig Mall. As
discussed in Notes 1 and 7, the land and the mall, which were used as
collaterals for the Company's bank loans, were foreclosed by the lender
banks in 1999. However, the lender banks have not been able to
consolidate the ownership and take possession of these properties
pending decision of the case by the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the
properties are still carried in the books of the Company. As of April 21,
2004, the Company continues to operate the said mall. Based on the
December 11, 2003 report of an independent appraiser, the fair market
value of the land, improvements and machinery and equipment would
amount to about P2.9billion.
Land pertains to the Company's properties in Pasig City where the Ever
Pasig Mall is situated. 26
DcTSHa

It is clear that as of year-end 2003, Gotesco had continued to assert ownership

over the Ever Ortigas Commercial Complex as evidenced by the following: (a) it
persistently challenged the validity of the foreclosure sale which was the
transaction subject to the P74,400,028.49 creditable withholding tax; and (b) its
2003 Audited Financial Statements declared said complex as one of its
properties. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that since Gotesco vehemently
refused to recognize the validity of the foreclosure sale, it stands to reason that it
also refused to recognize the payment of the creditable withholding tax that was
due on the sale and most especially, claim the same as a tax credit.
Certainly, Gotesco's relentless refusal to transfer registered ownership of the
Ever Ortigas Commercial Complex to PNB constitutes proof enough that Gotesco
will not do any act inconsistent with its claim of ownership over the foreclosed
asset, including claiming the creditable tax imposed on the foreclosure sale as tax
credit and utilizing such amount to oset its tax liabilities. To do such would run
roughshod over Gotesco's rm stance that PNB's foreclosure on the mortgage
was invalid and that it remained the owner of the subject property.
Several pieces of evidence likewise point to Gotesco's non-utilization of the
claimed creditable withholding tax. As advised by the First Division, Gotesco
presented its 2003 ITR 27 along with its 2003 Schedule of Prepaid Tax 28 which
itemized in detail the withholding taxes claimed by Gotesco for the year 2003
amounting to P6,014,433. The aforesaid schedule shows that the creditable
withholding taxes Gotesco utilized to pay for its 2003 tax liabilities came from
the rental payments of its tenants in the Ever Ortigas Commercial Complex, not
from the foreclosure sale.
Further, Gotesco's former accountant, Ma. Analene T. Roxas, stated in her Judicial
Adavit 29 that the tax credits claimed for year 2003 did not include any portion
of the amount subject to the claim for refund. First, she explained that Gotesco
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

could not have possibly utilized the amount claimed for refund as it was not even
aware that PNB paid the six percent (6%) creditable withholding tax since no
documents came to its attention which showed such payment by PNB. As she
also explained, had Gotesco claimed the entire or even any portion of
P74,400,028.49, corresponding to the six percent (6%) tax withheld by PNB, the
amount appearing in Items 27D 30 and 27C 31 of Gotesco's 2003 ITR should have
reected the additional amount of P74,400,028.49. The pertinent portions of
Roxas' Judicial Adavit read:
Q: In GOTESCO's 2003 ITRs, both Tentative and amended, the total tax
credits/payments amounted to Php6,014,433.00. Are you familiar
with the composition or breakdown of this Php6,014,433.00?
DEcSaI

A: Yes.
Q: May we know, for the record, if any part of this Php6,014,433.00 of
GOTESCO's tax credits for year 2003 pertains to the 6% Creditable
Tax Withheld by PNB amounting to Php74,400,028.49? To be more
specic, does any part of the Php6,014,433.00 of GOTESCO's tax
credits for year 2003 pertain to the Php12,400,004.70 amount
subject to the present claim for refund before the Honorable Court
of Tax Appeals?
A: For the record and based on the ITRs of GOTESCO, the amount of
Php6,014,433.00 tax credits for year 2003 did not encompass any
portion of the Php74,400,028.49 representing 6% Creditable Tax
Withheld, or to be more specic, said Php6,014,433.00 tax credits
of GOTESCO for year 2003 did not include any portion of the
Php12,400,004.70 amount subject to the present claim for refund.
Q: Why is this so, Ms. Analene? In theory, the Php74 million creditable
withholding tax should have beneted GOTESCO, right?
A: In theory, it is only proper for GOTESCO to claim and utilize the Php74
million creditable withholding tax.
However, GOTESCO was not aware that PNB paid 6% creditable
withholding tax on behalf of GOTESCO. There were no documents
that came to GOTESCO's attention which showed such
Php74million creditable tax was paid to the BIR on behalf of
GOTESCO.
Q: Considering that you mentioned earlier that you helped prepare
GOTESCO's 2003 ITR, do you have documents to support your
statement?
A: Yes. I have with me a document containing GOTESCO's Schedule of
Prepaid Tax. However, this Schedule of Prepaid Tax is still
unadjusted. The nal gure is properly reected in GOTESCO'S
2003 ITR in the column of Total Tax Credits/Payments.
Q: How can this unadjusted Schedule of Prepaid Tax support your
statement that GOTESCO did not utilize any portion of the
Php74,400,028.49 representing 6% creditable tax withheld by
herein Petitioner PNB?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

A: As you can see, based on this Schedule of Prepaid Tax, there is a

comprehensive list of GOTESCO tenants and breakdown of their
prepaid tax or creditable tax withheld.
Although PNB was listed as a tenant of GOTESCO, the withholding tax of
PNB for year 2003 (as reected in GOTESCO's Schedule of Prepaid
Tax) only amounted to Php65,985.44 due to the lease contract
between PNB and GOTESCO. This amount is too small if you
compare it with the Php74million creditable tax withheld by PNB
based on their foreclosure of GOTESCO's Ortigas Mall Complex.
Q: Are you aware of any other document which would likewise conrm
your conclusion that GOTESCO did not utilize any portion of the
Php74,400,004.70 subject of the present claim for refund?
A: Yes. The 2003 Tentative and Amended ITRs of GOTESCO would prove
that GOTESCO did not utilize any portion of the Php74,400,028.49
representing 6% creditable tax withheld by herein Petitioner PNB.
Had

GOTESCO claimed the entire or even any portion of

Php74,400,028.49, corresponding to the 6% tax withheld by PNB,
the amount appearing in Item 27D-Creditable Tax Withheld per BIR
Form 2307 for the Fourth Quarter should not only be
Php1,362,965.00, but should have reected the additional amount
of Php74,400,028.49.

The same observation can be applied in Item 27C Creditable Tax Withheld
for the First Three Quarters, such that the amount reected should
not only be Php4,651,568.00 but Php74,400,028.49 more. 32

All in all, the evidence presented by petitioner suciently proved its entitlement
to the claimed refund. There is no need for PNB to present Gotesco's BIR Form
No. 2307, as insisted by the First Division, because the information contained in
the said form may be very well gathered from other documents already
presented by PNB. Thus, the presentation of BIR Form No. 2307 would be in the
nal analysis a superuity, of little or no value.
In claims for excess and unutilized creditable withholding tax, the submission of
BIR Forms 2307 is to prove the fact of withholding of the excess creditable
withholding tax being claimed for refund. This is clear in the provision of Section
58.3, RR 2-98, as amended, and in various rulings of the Court. 33 In the words of
Section 2.58.3, RR 2-98, "That the fact of withholding is established by a copy of
a statement duly issued by the payor (withholding agent) to the payee showing
the amount paid and the amount of tax withheld therefrom."
Hence, the probative value of BIR Form 2307, which is basically a statement
showing the amount paid for the subject transaction and the amount of tax
withheld therefrom, is to establish only the fact of withholding of the claimed
creditable withholding tax. There is nothing in BIR Form No. 2307 which would
establish either utilization or non-utilization, as the case may be, of the
creditable withholding tax.
It must be noted that PNB had already presented the Withholding Tax
Remittance Returns (BIR Form No. 1606) relevant to the transaction. The said
forms show that the amount of P74,400,028.49 was withheld and paid by PNB
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

in the year 2003. It contains, among other data, the name of the payor and the
payee, the description of the property subject of the transaction, and the
determination of the taxable base, and the tax rate applied. These are the very
same key information that would be gathered from BIR Form No. 2307.
While perhaps it may be necessary to prove that the taxpayer did not use the
claimed creditable withholding tax to pay for his/its tax liabilities, there is no
basis in law or jurisprudence to say that BIR Form No. 2307 is the only evidence
that may be adduced to prove such non-use.
In this case, PNB was able to establish, through the evidence it presented, that
Gotesco did not in fact use the claimed creditable withholding taxes to settle its
tax liabilities, to reiterate: (1) Gotesco's 2003 Audited Financial Statements,
which still included the mortgaged property in the asset account "Properties and
Equipment," proving that Gotesco did not recognize the foreclosure sale and
therefore, the payment by PNB of the creditable withholding taxes corresponding
to the same; (2) Gotesco's 2003 ITRs, which the CTA Special First Division
required to show that the excess creditable withholding tax claimed for refund
was not used by Gotesco, along with the 2003 Schedule of Prepaid Tax which
itemized in detail the withholding taxes claimed by Gotesco for the year 2003
amounting to P6,014,433.00; (3) the testimony of Gotesco's former accountant,
proving that the amount subject of PNB's claim for refund was not included
among the creditable withholding taxes stated in Gotesco's 2003 ITR; and (4) the
Withholding Tax Remittance Returns (BIR Form 1606) proving that the amount
of P74,400,028.49 was withheld and paid by PNB in the year 2003.
Ergo, the evidence on record suciently proves that the claimed creditable
withholding tax was withheld and remitted to the BIR, that such withholding and
remittance was erroneous, and that the claimed creditable withholding tax was
not used by Gotesco to settle its tax liabilities.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition. The Decision of the
Court of Tax Appeals En Banc dated September 12, 2012 and its Resolution dated
February 12, 2013 in CTA EB Case No. 762 are hereby REVERSED an d SET
ASIDE, and a new one entered DIRECTING respondent Commissioner of
Internal Revenue to refund to petitioner Philippine National Bank, within thirty
(30) days from the nality of this Decision, the amount of Twelve Million Four
Hundred
Thousand
and
Four
Pesos
and
Seventy-One
Centavos
(Php12,400,004.71), representing excess creditable withholding taxes withheld
and paid for the year 2003.
cADaIH

SO ORDERED.
Peralta, Del Castillo, * Villarama, Jr. and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Additional member per rae dated March 16, 2015.
1. Amended Articles of Incorporation of Gotesco Tyan Ming Development, Inc.,
records, CTA Case No. 7588, pp. 51-61.
2. Rollo, p. 33.
3. Id. at 33.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

4. Id. at 34.
5. Id.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id. at 34-35.
9. Id. at 35.
10. Id. at 34.
11. Id. at 35.
12. Id. at 35.
13. Id. at 48-65.
14. Id. at 65.
15. Id. at 60.
16. Id. at 61-62.
17. Id. at 71-75.
18. Id. at 74-75.
19. Id. at 31.
20. Id. at 40.
21. Id. at 31-46.
22. Id. at 43-44.
23. Id. at 67-69.
24. Id. at 62.
25. Id. at 105-123.
26. Id. at 119.
27. Id. at 136-138.
28. Id. at 124-126.
29. Id. at 127-132.
30. Item 27D of ITR Creditable Tax Withheld per BIR Form No. 2307 for the Fourth
Quarter.
31. Item 27C of ITR Creditable Tax Withheld for the First Three Quarters.
32. Rollo, pp. 130-131.
33. See Filinvest Development Corporation v. CIR , G.R. No. 146941, August 9, 2007,
529 SCRA 605.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the ocial copy.)

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2016

cdasiaonline.com